Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bowen Wells in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Bowen Wells: I must explain to the Committee why it is faced with yet a third Chairman for its third sitting. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Sayeed have other matters to attend to outside the House today, so I shall be in the Chair today. I have read the report of the previous two sittings and I am conscious of the limited time in which to consider the Bill—some Opposition Members believe that it is too little time. I shall therefore be strict and keep members of the Committee in order at all times, so that valuable time is not wasted. Clause 24 Provision of information on sale of registration plates

Clause 24 - Provision of information on sale of registration plates

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: Before we come to a judgment about the validity of the clause, I should be most grateful to the Minister if he will elaborate on the phrase
information of a prescribed description
 in line 3.

David Chidgey: What information will be required from a prospective purchaser? Each year, about 10 million vehicle registrations are processed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and, at any one time, many thousands of vehicle registration documents could be en route to and from the agency, or being processed by it. In such a situation, how will the registered keeper of a vehicle obtain a new plate? Will documents other than the vehicle registration document be accepted? If so, what measures will be taken to ensure that the purchaser has a bona fide right to the plate?
 On a lighter note, do the Government intend to review the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 so that number plates can be positioned where they are less likely to be damaged? Plates seem to be particularly vulnerable at the front of vehicles. The hon. Gentleman will know from earlier debates that about 3 million plates have to be replaced each year because of damage. Does he have any proposals to strengthen number plates, so they are much less likely to be damaged? I look forward to his reply.

Keith Hill: Your unexpected appearance as Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Wells, is none the less greeted with great delight. [Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] We look forward to your rigorous chairmanship of our proceedings.
 With the exception of the question about the construction and use regulations, the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey)—I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly—and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have asked the same question. I hope that they will accept that I cannot deal with that immediately. I will attempt, in due course, to return to that matter at a more comprehensive length, but I should point out at this stage that material used for the manufacture of number plates is set by the British Standards Institution. However, I will return to the hon. Gentleman's question at greater length. 
 On the question raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the information referred to in the clause is information that provides proof that the prospective purchaser is entitled to receive plates bearing the registration mark requested. That could be done by asking for proof of identity such as a driving licence, or a passport and proof of entitlement to the registration marks such as the registration document. In other words, it will be open to identify more extensive evidence of identity than those strictly relating to the purchase and keepership of the vehicle.

David Chidgey: My point is simple. I am concerned about the delay in the process while documents are in the post to and from the DVLA. Will that problem be resolved?

Keith Hill: I find myself regularly answering questions about the amount of time that the DVLA takes to deal with transactions and on the whole it is a relatively brief period in any circumstances—although some people might challenge that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman took my point that the Government will consider setting out in regulations the possibility of a greater range of evidence of identity than those that simply relate to the vehicle itself.

John Bercow: I take this opportunity to welcome you warmly, Mr. Wells, to the chairmanship of our proceedings.
 The Under-Secretary observed that on Second Reading, I required little provocation to leap to my feet and I feel tempted to do so on this occasion. He implied that he would not be able to give details now of the information of the prescribed description referred to in line 3 of clause 24. Is it the Government's intention to issue draft regulations before, or to coincide with, the Report stage of the Bill? Or will he by some other means and at what time give us some idea of the information of prescribed description?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly reasonable and proper point. It is certainly our intention to consult fully on the proposed regulations, and I look forward to his representations on those in due course. As he will be aware from our exchanges on Second Reading and the observations that have been made in the course of our proceedings so far, there have already been extensive consultations on the measures contained in the Bill. There has also been a high level of unanimity about the measure among the key players, including the official Opposition, who, very reasonably, chose not to divide the House on the substantive measure.
 I notice that the hon. Gentleman and I both seemed to have pored intensively over the proceedings on Second Reading. He is absolutely right—I did say that he had a tendency to leap to his feet with relatively little provocation, but it is important in our proceedings that all ministerial utterances should be challenged in detail. I can reassure him that there will be comprehensive consultation on those matters before the regulations are proposed to the House. 
 In conclusion, the clause is one of the key provisions in this part of the Bill. It requires anyone conducting business as a registration plate supplier to ensure that plates are sold only to people who have a genuine reason for purchasing them. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Rights to enter and inspect premises

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13,
 leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert— 
 `(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.
 (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1). 
 (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time— 
 (a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and 
 (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part. 
 (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so. 
 (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

Bowen Wells: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 27, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert—
 `(1) A constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to ascertain whether the provisions of this Part are being complied with and, if necessary, to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part.
 (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1).
 (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—
(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and
(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.
 (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.
 (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.
 Amendment No. 9, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert—`at any reasonable time,' and insert 
 `during normal hours of business'.
 Clause stand part.

John Bercow: I think that the Committee will readily understand the purpose of the amendments. I reiterate at the outset what should be apparent to everyone who reads the Bill. Clause 25 relates to the right of a constable or authorised person to enter and inspect premises. That does not seem an unreasonable power, and precedents for it exist in a great many measures. It is essential that the intention of the Bill can be made effective in practice, and if a police constable or other authorised person has reason to believe, and, presumably, good grounds to suspect, that illegal activity might be taking place, it is essential that he should be empowered to inspect and investigate. About that there is no disagreement.
 As the Under-Secretary, and, I am sure, you, too, Mr. Wells, will be aware from the substance of the Second Reading debate, members of the official Opposition expressed anxiety—I cannot remember whether that anxiety extended to Liberal Democrats—about the apparent inconsistency of treatment in the clause of registered registration plate suppliers and of those who are not registered. To avoid doubt and being contradicted by the Minister, I say at the outset that I am fully aware that under the Bill all registration plate suppliers will be obliged to be registered, and that those who are not registered violate and contravene the Bill. Nevertheless, the central point—suspicion of wrongdoing—is the same in both cases, and my hon. Friends and I found that inconsistency of treatment curious. Specifically, we thought it peculiar that, for the investigation of someone who was registered as a registration plate supplier, it would be in order for a constable or other authorised person to enter and inspect premises at a reasonable time without a warrant. However, if the constable or other authorised person proposed to enter and inspect the premises of someone who was not registered as a registered plate supplier, that constable or other authorised person would require a warrant. 
 My point, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—who is still, I regret to say, suffering from the effects of the aforementioned bite—was that that seemed unfairly to discriminate against someone who was properly and lawfully registered, and effectively to favour, or at least to be a little soft on, someone who was not registered. That seemed curious. 
 For that reason—I am doing my best to explain a simple point as succinctly as possible—it seemed worth while to table amendments to tease out the Government's thinking. I say without embarrassment or apology that my hon. Friends and I tabled two amendments that contradict each other. That was quite deliberate. In the name of consistency and mutuality of treatment, we suggest that either both registered and unregistered registration plate suppliers should be capable of inspection at any reasonable time by a constable or authorised person only possessing a warrant or they should both be open to inspection by a constable or other authorised person who does not possess a warrant. That would at least ensure equal treatment. Rightly, the principle of non-discrimination informs much legislation and the general attitude of political parties towards the conduct of human affairs. 
 I thought it courteous to write to the Minister in advance for the elucidation and edification of those who did not attend our proceedings on Tuesday. I emphasise that I am not referring to any ordinary Minister of State. It is important to put it on record again that he was referred to in The Guardian on Monday as ``the man with a mission'', described by John Kampfner as ``an arch-operator'' who might be the next leader of the Labour party. 
 I endeavour to be a courteous fellow in all circumstances and I thought it particularly appropriate to mind my p's and q's in that context. So I wrote to the Minister on 5 January. I apologised to him for not signing the letter myself. I was in Israel at the time, so it was signed on my behalf. I said: 
 I am writing ahead of the first committee stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.
 I emphasised in my letter that on Second Reading I had stated my concern about Clause 25 and said: 
 I believe this places a greater burden on legitimate businesses who comply with the law, rather than on those plate suppliers who operate whilst unregistered.
 To resolve this conflict I have tabled two amendments to encourage discussion about the issue. The first amendment requires the authorities to hold a warrant before entering either registered or unregistered premises, while the second allows them access without notice—
 or warrant— 
 to either establishment.
 My purpose in tabling these two probing amendments was to find a satisfactory solution to what I see as a problem in the clause as it stands. I thought that the Minister should be aware of that before the debate. 
 We have proposed a solution. Amendment No. 26 requires that the authorities should have a warrant before they enter registered or unregistered businesses. Amendment No. 27 states that they may enter either business ``at any reasonable time''. Of course that means that they may do so without a warrant. 
 Some people might think that it would be sensible, in order to maximise the efficacy of the Bill, to allow entry for inspection at any time and without a warrant, that that would be proper and that we should agree to it. Others will say, ``No. It should be necessary, to safeguard the rights of the individual, to secure a warrant in advance.'' As it is not a deeply partisan matter, I am happy to vouchsafe to the Committee that, in general terms, I am of a libertarian bent. So the Minister will not be surprised to know that, as I am rather suspicious of the use of overweening authority by agents of the state, I believe that in these circumstances constables should require warrants. I jealously—and perhaps zealously—guard the privacy of the individual and the right of freeborn Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Northern Irishmen in the United Kingdom to go about their lawful business unmolested by the avaricious appetite of state officials. Others, who are less concerned about that, think that constables should be able to go about their business at any time and that a warrant should not be necessary. I prefer the requirement and use of a warrant in both cases, although it may well be that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hold a miscellany of views on the subject.

David Kidney: Is the hon. Gentleman assuming that, in all circumstances, the inspections are to discover whether the registered person is doing something illegal? I ask that because for many years I knew the police officer whose job it was under the scrap metal merchants' registered scheme—

John Bercow: 1964?

David Kidney: Indeed, 1964. His job was to inspect the records, not to see whether an operator was behaving criminally, but to find out whether the records of transactions raised suspicions in the police mind that other people were operating illegally. So it was of assistance to the police when carrying out their general duties, and scrap metal merchants were willing to assist them.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who makes a fair point. It might well be that a constable, or other authorised person, would wish to enter and inspect for that purpose. I am certainly prepared to accept that the focus of suspicion would not be necessarily and invariably on the registered—or unregistered—plate supplier. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that in the United Kingdom there is a natural respect for—and occasionally even fear of—authority. That is part of the law-abiding, perhaps even God-fearing, instinct of large numbers of people in our country. Unless an individual had advance notice of not only the intended visit but the rationale behind it, he could well be worried. Of course, he would then be relieved when the police constable or other authorised person told him that the purpose of the inquiry related to possible illegal or criminal activity by others, not by himself. However, he would experience some anxiety in the run-up to the visit.
 I do not think that the constable or other authorised person will be required to give notice of the intended visit, although I would like the Minister to clarify that, and I hope that such notice is, in fact, required. I am pretty sure, however—here I stick my neck out—that even if the constable or other authorised person is expected or required to give notice of the intended visit, he is not required or expected to explain its purpose. I would not want legitimate business people to worry about the reason for such a visit; there should be a requirement in the clause for a constable or other authorised person to obtain a warrant, and it would be a matter of good order to give some idea of the visit's purpose, too. 
 I anticipate that the Minister will say that what I suggest is a bad idea because giving someone who is engaged in improper or criminal activity advance notice of the entry and inspection might give him time to conceal evidence. That is an arguable point, but there is something to be said for at least providing advance notice. We will not dilate upon the matter at this point, Mr. Wells, because that would incur your disfavour, but there is something to be said, too, for the argument made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in amendment No. 9. 
 I welcome some clarification from the Minister, hoping that he will recognise from the way in which I developed the argument that it is a matter of legitimate concern. My hon. Friends and I would be greatly obliged if he could assuage my concern and prove that my libertarian instincts should not be in any way offended by the clause as it stands.

David Chidgey: The final comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham come close to the heart of the matter. I have discussed the issue with members of the police force who have dealt with the criminal activity in this part of the motor trade for many years. They told me that too often, when trying to inspect records or premises, they have been told, ``We are closed for the weekend—can you come back on Monday?'' Of course, over the weekend, all the suspect records mysteriously disappear.
 We have something of a dichotomy here. The clause states that a police officer ``may at any reasonable time'' request permission to see records. By using that phrasing, the Minister may presume that a police officer can, within that time frame, expect access and entry to the premises. That should remove the opportunity for the villain—after all, we are dealing with villains here—to remove or doctor the records. However, the clause limits the time frame for the police officer by specifying ``any reasonable time''. I do not know whether the Minister can follow my argument. In giving the police more freedom, we have limited the time in which they can exercise it. That may not work well in practice. 
 To return to the salient point—the aim of the Bill is to enable police officers to establish an audit trail of registration plates and to follow, as part of a criminal inquiry, what happens to a vehicle and its registration plates. We must try to find a way of overcoming the blocks, deviations and hurdles that villains put in the way of police officers trying to exercise their duties. My amendment is intended to tease that out, as I am not sure that the way in which the clause is phrased will achieve that aim. The clause gives police officers powers to demand the right of access, but it stipulates that they can do so only at a reasonable time. As we have debated previously, reasonable means ``reasonable under the circumstances'', which could lead to yet another debate.

John Bercow: As I said, I see much merit in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I was wrong to suggest that I could not dilate on it at this point, as it is grouped with amendments Nos. 26 and 27. I was, uncharacteristically, applying a self-denying ordinance that I did not need to apply. I suggest that the feature of the clause that allows the use of reasonable force becomes especially important in the event that entry is secured outside normal working hours, as it is reasonable to suppose that no one from the company would be present. Therefore, door-forcing, for example, might be necessary.

David Chidgey: That is a good point. I say that without hesitation as the hon. Gentleman brings me on to my final point, for which I thank him.
 It is likely that criminal activities on the premises would take place outside of normal business hours. That is another Catch-22 situation. I am far from sure that the clause enables police officers to establish an audit trail in relation to what is happening, and therefore to discover whether criminal activities are taking place.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a couple of general points. I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am, Mr. Wells, to serve under your unexpected but most welcome chairmanship.
 The Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front-Benchers have spoken eloquently to the three amendments. I want to make one or two general points relating to clause 25, and the thrust of the Government's thinking on the matter. If the Government are determined to make the Bill succeed, they will have to allocate more constables to the duties contained in it. That is the source of my grave concern. I represent a rural area, and I am unable to say at this moment whether faulty registration and rogue registration are currently a problem there. However, following my meeting with the chief constable tomorrow, I expect to be much better briefed on the matter for the Committee's sittings next week. 
 North Yorkshire has the highest incidence of road traffic accidents in the country. It is a source of alarm to my constituents in the Vale of York and residents elsewhere in North Yorkshire that newspaper reports have suggested that the number of traffic police will be reduced in view of the current shortfall in police officers. At the end of last year, we were short of 43 constables. That figure is rising, which was confirmed, I believe, in Prime Minister's questions yesterday. 
 We are already facing a crisis in policing in rural areas such as North Yorkshire. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm or deny those newspaper reports? Will he assure the Committee that road traffic police officers will not be taken away from their important duties, and that they will not be given new duties under the Bill?

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a matter for chief constables? It is an operational matter, and not one for my hon. Friend the Minister or the Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman is wilfully missing the thrust of my remarks and misinterpreting them. My point is that chief constables are given a precept each year and in North Yorkshire we are woefully short of our quota.

John Bercow: The observation made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) was unworthy of a man of his calibre.
 One might clarify the issue by using the analogy of a professional cake provider who knows that a certain number of slices of cake will be divided between a set number of people. If he subsequently discovers that there will be many more consumers or eaters than expected, is it not absurd to describe the situation as unchanged and to say, ``Oh, well. That is the cake and they will just have to argue about how to divvy it up''? If a new category of offences is to be created, with a new requirement for the police to investigate them, it is absurd to argue that the number of police available to do the work is immaterial. That argument is so preposterous that it should not be advanced even by a Back-Bench Labour Member.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose remarks show that one cannot have one's cake and eat it.

Charles Clarke: I should make a couple of important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford was entirely and importantly constitutionally correct in his remarks, and I am grateful to him for making the point. He benefits from the fact that the chief constable of Kent, who is one of the most outstanding in the country, has paid great attention to vehicle crime. My hon. Friend is very aware of and familiar with the issues, which we have discussed outside the Committee.
 A critical point is that whatever happens, the operational responsibility of chief constables is paramount. Politicians, police authorities and local councils cannot and should not challenge that operational autonomy in the allocation of resources. However, I assure the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that there is no guidance from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers or other organisations to suggest that resources should be shifted from road traffic policing to other policing responsibilities. There is no such guidance or doctrine. 
 Government initiatives, in particular on speeding, with pilot schemes for speed cameras, have achieved significant results. Some staffing pressures have been relieved in the seven or eight authorities where the pilot schemes are taking place, and the approach will be spread across the country. However, that is not a matter of general guidance. It is, of course, open to the hon. Lady to make general points about police numbers and resources, but her point about the shift of resources from road traffic policing to other policing is a matter for the chief constable of her county. No doubt she will talk to him about it tomorrow.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister of State for that helpful suggestion. I do not question the integrity or calibre of the chief constable of North Yorkshire, who is second to none. He has turned round the morale and standing of the North Yorkshire police. When I was elected, before his appointment, many ordinary officers in North Yorkshire were taking retirement, and there was a higher incidence of illness than in many other police forces in the country. That was a matter of concern and the transformation in the North Yorkshire force's morale and achievements is a credit to the chief constable's hard work.
 The intervention of the Minister of State helpfully leads me on to my next remarks. Incidentally, I want to mention my interest, which is declared in the register, as a member of the public policy committee of the RAC Foundation. That brings certain benefits that are greatly appreciated. The Minister of State said earlier this week that the foundation's comments were generally in support of the Bill. I have received a briefing, from it, which states: 
 We believe that the Bill, which relates to vehicle crime, would have done much better to concentrate on the need for more traffic police officers to reinforce the additional powers given in the legislation.
 In connection with speed cameras, to which the Minister referred, it states: 
 The hypothecation of speed camera penalties seems to have little to do with the reduction of vehicle crime in the long run.
 The whole thrust of the Bill—especially clause 25—begs the question why the Government have chosen to introduce a Bill on vehicle crime at this stage of the Parliament. Although I do not serve on the shadow Home Office team, my understanding is that, while it is still unacceptably high, the incidence of vehicle crime is decreasing. It is particularly high in North Yorkshire, where 4x4 vehicles used by farmers to reach inaccessible parts of their land are often targeted. That is a source of concern, but it would be interesting if the Minister could tell us why the Government are addressing the issue at this stage of the Parliament.

Charles Clarke: I would like to clarify that point. The Government's three crime priorities are vehicle crime, burglary and violent crime. The legislation focuses on vehicle crime. It follows on from the work of the vehicle crime reduction action team and flows naturally from it. The VCRAT proposed certain legislation that would help us to reach our targets for vehicle crime reduction. As the hon. Lady generously acknowledges, we are already doing well in reducing vehicle crime, but the Bill is designed to reduce it further.
 Other legislation before the House deals with burglary, including the Private Security Industry Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. On violent crime, we are considering the introduction—in this Session—of legislation to deal with street crime and disorder. We have different legal measures to attain different policy goals. This Bill is before the House at this stage of the Parliament because we are trying to attack crime on all fronts. It also flows naturally from the work of the vehicle crime reduction action team, in which the RAC Foundation participates.

Anne McIntosh: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to underline the fact that there has been a cut in vehicle crime. She will know, because she was present at the Second Reading debate, that we have parleyed with the Government about the extent or significance of the cut that so far has been achieved. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be in any way be diverted from her very sound basic point, which is that, in light of the creation of new offences, it is inevitable that there will be an increased incidence of crime, at least in relation to clause 25. Does she agree that it is essential that we take proper account of the burden that we are, perhaps correctly, creating by virtue of the clause on the smaller number of officers?

Bowen Wells: Order. I am being very generous in permitting what is becoming a Second Reading debate. However, I must ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to deal with the clause now, having made her clear and proper point about the police. We must return to the matter in hand, which is clause 26.

Anne McIntosh: Do you mean clause 25, Mr. Wells?

Bowen Wells: I am sorry. I meant amendment No. 26.

Anne McIntosh: I do not wish to go on too much. I am grateful for your generosity, Mr. Wells. I have pursued the point vigorously and I am grateful for the Minister's intervention and for the support that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.
 The hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled amendment No. 9. The original text of the clause states that the constable or officer would be allowed to visit at any reasonable time, and I am minded to support that for the simple reason that it gives the police the opportunity to visit the premises of a potentially rogue business to seize possibly incriminating documents out of business hours. The amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. If the police are to gain the powers to carry out this duty, they should not be diverted from other duties.

David Chidgey: The hon. Lady mentioned my amendment. May I reassure her that it was designed as a probing amendment to facilitate debate on the pros and cons, not a substantive amendment?
Mr. Bercow rose—

Anne McIntosh: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the observation made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we take the tough approach and allow constables or other authorised persons to inspect premises outside of normal business hours, the question of the application of reasonable force becomes compelling? In such circumstances, what does my hon. Friend believe would constitute ``reasonable force''? If severe damage were caused to the property of registered or unregistered plate suppliers in the process, would the Government expect compensation to be provided?

Anne McIntosh: That raises an important point, with which I have considerably sympathy. I accept that the hon. Member for Eastleigh tabled a probing amendment. I continue in the same spirit and offer the Government the opportunity to respond to my probing remarks. I repeat my earlier question: do the Government intend to allow officers to visit premises at any reasonable time? If officers proposed to enter premises outside office hours, would it be done in conjunction with the owners or occupiers of those premises? Could officers use reasonable force to enter?

John Bercow: I do not want to labour the point, but it is important. Let us envisage a scenario whereby late at night a constable uses reasonable force and causes considerable noise or commotion at premises located near to residential property. Should we not take proper account of such a scenario?

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend may not like my reply, but forceful powers rest with the Commission of the European Union to enter premises and seize documents in competition cases. Are the Government aware of those parallels, and do they envisage the use of reasonable force in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham? Elderly or other vulnerable people living in a nearby residential area could be alarmed.

Jonathan R Shaw: Once again, I find myself coming to the defence of operational autonomy. Surely the reasonableness of entering a property would depend on the nature of the inquiry. It might be reasonable for notice to be given in connection with routine visits, but giving no notice whatever would be entirely reasonable for covert operations in which serious crime is suspected.

Anne McIntosh: These probing amendments give the Government the opportunity to outline how they envisage the clause being implemented operationally. Many questions are unanswered. This is the only opportunity that we have to look at the issues.

John Bercow: I am worried about what might be called the insouciant attitude of Government Back Benchers to the application of force and the exercise of police power. The point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is not entirely unreasonable. I hope that he, and more particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, accept that the issue of compensation that I have highlighted, in regard to significant damage to property, is of the first importance given that the police constable involved does not have perfect information at the time of the use of that force. He may suspect criminality, but his suspicion may prove unfounded. If significant damage is caused, are individuals not entitled to expect compensation, and should that not be clearly understood?

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps I am too na—ve and trusting, but having grown up in a country that is not a police state, I have sufficient confidence in the police.

Stephen McCabe: I am listening with interest to the points made by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Buckingham. We are getting a new version of softly, softly policing. When the hon. Lady put her name to amendment No. 27, what did she have in mind by ``reasonable''? It would surely help us if we knew that.

Anne McIntosh: I will refresh the memory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) by telling him that I practised law for a short time at the Scottish Bar. It was against that background that I seized the opportunity to offer two alternative drafts to the clause. I did so not in a desire to be provocative but to give, in the same vein as the hon. Member for Eastleigh, the Government the opportunity to consider the matter in a constructive but constrained and focused way. In particular, subsection (2) provides that a constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1). I am minded to press that with the Government.

Stephen McCabe: The point that I am trying to put to the hon. Lady is that, while I accept that she is keen to tease out what would constitute reasonable force in those circumstances, she must know what she thought was ``reasonable'' when she put her name to the amendment that uses exactly that word. It would help our proceedings if she told us what she regards as reasonable.

Anne McIntosh: The courts have over the years interpreted the concept of reasonable force as force that would be regarded as reasonable by a reasonable man or a reasonable woman. In my view, it would be reasonable—particularly in regard to my hon. Friend's point about compensation—to enter a premises only if the weight of evidence were such that there was more than a strong suspicion that there was relevant material inside. Some potential criminals are—

Jonathan R Shaw: Not reasonable.

Anne McIntosh: Precisely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assisting me. Officers must seize opportunities that present themselves, but I shall not labour that point. I had moved on to amendment No. 9, but was drawn back to amendments Nos. 26 and 27 almost against my will.
 I accept that amendment No. 9 is, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, a probing amendment. It provides the Government with the opportunity to explain why we should agree to replace at any reasonable time with 
 during normal hours of business.

Keith Hill: We have benefited from a wide-ranging contribution from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She confided in me yesterday that she had a terrific anti-Labour story for this morning.

Anne McIntosh: This is not it.

Keith Hill: Oh, the hon. Lady has an even better anti-Labour story. That is impressive, because this is not a very good anti-Labour story. She will recollect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to her and all hon. Members last week explaining clearly that the number of police officers in north Yorkshire is increasing. Indeed, the number has increased by 10 since the beginning of September 2000 and continues to increase—[Laughter.] Collapse of stout party!

Anne McIntosh: The Under-Secretary is digging a big hole for himself. The number of police officers has fallen by 53 from last year and has probably fallen by even more if compared with the figure for 1 May 1997. The Minister is on record as saying that the number in north Yorkshire is rising, but I believe that the number of police officers who were serving on 1 May 1997 will not be restored by 1 May 2001.

Keith Hill: It remains beyond peradventure that in September last year there were 1,283 police officers in north Yorkshire and there are now 1,293. The number of police officers in north Yorkshire is increasing.
 The hon. Lady is probably right about road traffic accidents, because the number is high, but she will be aware that, in the local transport settlement announced by the Government in December 2000, north Yorkshire benefited from a colossal increase in investment in local transport of 176 per cent. That will make an immeasurable contribution to the improvement of road safety in north Yorkshire. The hon. Lady's comments in the Yorkshire Post about the Government's generosity were churlish and I now offer her the opportunity to withdraw her words.

Anne McIntosh: I fear that I have touched a raw nerve in the Under-Secretary, and I am delighted to have done so.
 I want to put it on the record that it is not the residents in north Yorkshire who cause the problem, but transit traffic. My point is that the Government have still not given a commitment to provide sufficient finance when they proceed with their detrunking programme in 2003—

Bowen Wells: Order. I have been more than generous in allowing the debate to extend to police resources, but we must now return to clause 25 and make proper use of our time.

Keith Hill: I regret that you are preventing me from pursuing the hon. Lady's point , Mr. Wells. Suffice it to say that the Bill will contribute significantly to a reduction in vehicle crime, which will free up police resources.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) rose—
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester) rose—
 Mr. Hill: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

Linda Gilroy: I hope that you will allow me to pursue the point, Mr. Wells. As I understand it, this debate was initiated in the context of the pressure on police. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this far-sighted Bill is about helping areas such as Plymouth? Although vehicle crime has dropped by 50 per cent. in my constituency, efforts to bear down further on the problem are proving particularly challenging. In fact, vehicle theft is creeping up slightly. From the point of view of the chief superintendent of police in Plymouth—and doubtless the partnerships—the Bill's provisions will greatly assist in maintaining the momentum against vehicle crime. I assure the Committee that the provisions will ultimately result in less pressure on the police and will save police time.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I remember well her saying on Second Reading that an impressive degree of community partnership with the police has driven down crime levels in Plymouth, and I commend the Plymouth experience to the Committee. She is right to say that the Bill will drive down vehicle crime levels and free up police resources for other purposes. However, in the light of your various observations, Mr. Wells, we should not dwell on the issue of police resources at this point, and I shall return to the substance of the debate. Before doing so, I should point out that the hon. Member for Colchester is right to say that levels of vehicle villainy, as he described it, in Essex are higher than in many other parts of the country. His very presence in this Committee shows his desire to seek a solution to the problem. [Interruption.]

Bowen Wells: Order. We cannot allow various sedentary interruptions and discussions for the simple reason that it prevents me from following the arguments.

Keith Hill: I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his courtesy in sending his extremely helpful letter of 5 January to my hon. Friend the Minister. It points out that the amendments, as the hon. Gentleman has said, are essentially probing amendments, so I do not propose to make heavy weather of their contradictory nature.
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned his preference for the use of warrants in both cases, but in fact he has given us a choice: a warrant in all cases, or none at all. However, the Bill offers a middle—perhaps even a third—way. A warrant on registered and non-registered premises is unnecessary, and I should like to explain the Government's thinking in that regard. It is right that registered businesses be open to inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. It should be borne in mind that some premises will be shops, accessible to the general public, that openly sell number plates. It is therefore illogical to argue that police officers cannot access such places. 
 Trading as a registration plate supplier and the consequent requirement to register bring with them the expectation that police officers have the right to ensure that legal requirements are being complied with. It would certainly be unacceptable to grant the police powers to enter any business premises without a warrant. I shall talk about that issue a little later. By registering, the supplier signs up to an inspection regime. It goes without saying that an honest supplier has nothing to fear from such a regime. An unregistered supplier is not part of the regime, and therefore needs to be given the same protection as businesses in general. On those grounds, we feel strongly that it would be unreasonable for the police to enter merely on suspicion. That is why the Bill stipulates the requirement for a warrant.

John Bercow: I understand the point that the Under-Secretary is making, but I genuinely and honourably disagree with it. He used the term ``not part of the regime'' to describe an unregistered registration plate supplier. That may be so, but will he confirm that such an individual is not excused from the requirements of the law simply because he is not part of the regime?

Keith Hill: I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is precisely because such a person is not excused from the requirements of the law that, where there is reasonable suspicion, the police will intervene on the premises. In those circumstances, the person is justified in expecting that a warrant be served. He is not excused from the application of the law, but merits the protection of common law in such matters.

John Bercow: I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the opposite should be the case. Even if there is unlawful activity on the premises, the registered plate supplier is within the law in practising his business because he has complied with the requirement to register, whereas the unregistered practising supplier is known by the constable or other person about to inspect the premises at least to be in breach of the law in one respect: operating without having registered. Why he should have the extra protection of the constable requiring a warrant, which is not imposed in respect of a registered registration plate supplier, has still not been explained to my satisfaction.

Keith Hill: I regret that. It will be evident to members of the Committee that I am no lawyer, and there is a limit to how far I can allow myself to be dragged into such legal detail.

John Bercow: Help is on its way.

Keith Hill: I am in no need of help. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the unregistered supplier is known to be breaking the law. He is suspected of breaking the law. That is the point of the searches that will be carried out on the premises of unregistered suppliers, who are hardly likely to be vaunting their illegal activities. In suspicious circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that the police should be required to take out a warrant.

David Chidgey: I should like to correct the Under-Secretary on a small point. He got himself into a bit of knot by saying first that someone is suspected of acting illegally and then that they are acting illegally. They should be assumed allegedly to be acting illegally until such time as the court decides.

Keith Hill: I must state for the record the phrase ``allegedly illegally''.
 The power to enter and inspect registered premises without a warrant is precedented in the famous Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which gives that power to local authority officers as well as to constables.

John Bercow: A seminal Act.

Keith Hill: It is a very important Act, which also reflects the principle that a warrant is required as a safeguard to liberty in the case of unregistered premises that may prove to be not for trade but of a private nature.
 Inspections on registered premises will not be primarily to unearth criminal activity on the part of the supplier, but to find information to assist with investigations. Inspections of unregistered suppliers will seek to discover whether they were supplying plates illegally—or allegedly illegally. Constables will not have to give notice, because that would be a burden on the police. Furthermore, if the police are trying to unearth criminal activity, a requirement to give notice would hinder their inquiries. They will visit at reasonable times, and if a business has up-to-date records, as it should, it will be easy to hand them over to a constable.

Anne McIntosh: I drew a parallel with the authority of the European Union Commissioners to allow premises to be entered without permission. However, that power is always subject to prior notice. Will the Under-Secretary put hon. Members' minds at rest by explaining why the Government do not intend to give prior notice—even if it is short notice? Would it not be better to co-operate with those who are suspected of perpetrating the crime, rather than going in on spec?

Keith Hill: It seems entirely reasonable that no notice should be required for registered suppliers. As I have said already, they have signed up, as it were, to such inspections. However, I am confounded by the idea of giving notice to those who are suspected of carrying out illegal activities. That would surely offer them the opportunity to disguise their activities. If the hon. Lady wants to come back on that point, she is at liberty to do so. Returning to the issue of reasonable time, one would expect a supplier to be available during business hours. We do not want constables to wake law-abiding people at midnight to ask to see their records.
 We had a series of exchanges about reasonable force. We expect that the police will enter outside reasonable hours only if a business has refused to give records to a constable or is unregistered. In those cases, the police must obtain a warrant and may use reasonable force. The hon. Member for Vale of York explained, in an especially cogent section of her speech, that the definition of reasonable force is found in common law: if a matter is brought before a court, it decides whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. It goes without saying that statute cannot easily specify reasonable force in all cases. There will, of course, be a power to use reasonable force, but only where there is a warrant; it will be impossible to use reasonable force without a warrant. 
 Let me deal with the right to enter without a warrant premises that are not registered as number plate suppliers. We take the view that to give that power to constables would be heavy-handed. A general search of premises to uncover evidence of involvement in the supply of number plates should be undertaken only with the authority of a justice of the peace. 
 The hon. Member for Eastleigh tabled amendment No. 9, which is intended to ensure that inspections of premises can take place only during normal business hours. The amendment is defective because it does not specify that the business hours are those of the business in question. However, the proposed change is unnecessary because a reasonable time would be when the premises were open.

John Bercow: I entirely understand the Minister's thinking. He will know that I am not altogether satisfied with the amendment, but specifically on the over-arching issue of the differential treatment I beg to differ with him. Some of his points about reasonable force, which in any case are not subject to an amendment from the official Opposition, were more compelling. However, I have listened to the debate and my hon. Friends and I do not wish to press our amendment to the vote, although we may wish to return to these matters at a later stage. On the strength of those brief remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Notification requirements: Part II

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 8, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

Bowen Wells: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 14, line 10, leave out `subsection (3)'.
 No. 12, in page 14, line 11, leave out `28 days', and insert `42 days'. 
 No. 29, in page 14, line 11, leave out `28' and insert `14'. 
 No. 11, in page 14, line 15, leave out `, (2) or (3)' and insert `or (2)'.

John Bercow: As the Committee will be aware and you will certainly have fully digested, Mr. Wells, clause 26 deals with the notification requirements of those who seek registration as registration plate suppliers. There seems to be some inconsistency in the clause. The Bill contains a requirement to register—that is, after all, the principle of the Bill—and a specific offence of trading as a registration plate supplier without being registered. The perpetrator of that offence is liable to a fine of up to £5,000. The central principle of our amendments is that, if we are to reflect the importance of registration and to penalise non-compliance, it is curious to treat lightly the provision of inadequate or out-of-date information. The unamended clause is in danger of doing that.
 The clause deals specifically with changes to the details in the register. At present, any change must be notified within 28 days. I invite the Committee to consider whether that is right. Is it a proper time scale? Do Ministers concede that, as in other parts of the Bill where time periods are specified, there is necessarily an element of arbitrariness involved? I say that in no uncritical vein. We have to choose what seems to be a reasonable time, but there is nothing absolute or sacrosanct about one period rather than another. 
 My concern and that of my hon. Friends is that the Bill should be effective in achieving its purpose. I hope that we have provided sufficient evidence of our bona fides for the Minister to accept that my motives in this matter are good, as are those of my hon. Friends. I am concerned that the provision as it stands is too lax. 
 I see no good reason why a registered business that is obviously aware of its legal obligations cannot notify the central authority of relevant changes within 14 days. A period of 28 days seems to leave the system open to abuse. If the requirement were 14 rather than 28 days, the provision could be properly and reasonably applied. There may be extenuating or mitigating circumstances which prevent the provision of the amended information within that time scale. The principle of reasonableness is contained elsewhere in the Bill and Ministers regularly assert it when they are in any way criticised. If we are to be strong-minded about the provision that businesses should be required to notify the authority of any changes, we should ensure that there is a reasonable, but not excessive, period of time within which those changes should be notified. 
 If it is proper to apply a severe penalty for people who do not register—we suggest that the penalty should be up to £5,000—why should failure to notify the authority of changes to the information required on the register be subject to a lesser penalty? It is surely wrong that failure to keep the details up to date should be punishable by anything less than a maximum fine of £5,000. Having inaccurate details on the register is the equivalent of not being registered at all and should be dealt with as such. 
 This information is of significance not only to two parties. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is of significance not only to the plate supplier providing the information and the central authority that processes and retains it, but to third parties who seek the information and who, as I understand it, would ordinarily be entitled to receive it. Unless they are in a category of persons who are not eligible to receive it, they will get the information. 
 It would be damaging for third parties to receive inaccurate and misleading information that caused them to make commercial errors and perhaps to incur financial loss. In those circumstances, the merit of the individual's being registered is not at all clear. People might almost be better off not knowing that the individual is registered than finding that material facts relating to the registration are incorrect. So, equivalence of treatment is the principle that should inform us and it is certainly the principle that lies behind the amendments. If it is right to make registration compulsory, and failure to register punishable, it is surely right to require people to register accurately and make failure to do that equally punishable. The punishment that my hon. Friends and I propose of a fine of up to £5,000 is precisely that. It is a maximum fine and, as the Minister explained in a different context earlier, it would be open to the courts to impose a lesser penalty if they wished. 
 Finally, I emphasise that it is odd that selling or supplying plates for illegal use is a lesser offence than failure to register as a business. It is the process of supplying plates that facilitates crime so, if anything, it should be treated more seriously than merely failing to register. We have proposed a notification period of 14 days to tighten up the regulations, while also raising the level of the fine from a maximum of £1,000 to a maximum of £5,000. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. I hope that the Minister will see some merit in it. I would be genuinely interested to hear other Committee members' comments and, above all, fascinated to learn the response of the Minister on the Treasury Bench. 
Mr. Chidgey rose—

Bowen Wells: Order. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we are not discussing amendments Nos. 30 and 31 with this group.

David Chidgey: On a point of order, Mr. Wells. Are amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 11, which you mentioned when we began debating clause 26, subject for debate at this point?

Bowen Wells: That is correct. In addition to amendment No. 28, we are debating amendments Nos. 10, 12, 29 and 11, but not amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which deal with fines.

David Chidgey: I am most grateful for that information. I shall detain the Committee only briefly on several points relating to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. In the main, we debated the issues raised by the amendments at a previous stage in our proceedings, and I do not intend to revisit those debates.
 Subsection (3) requires a registered person who is not carrying on business to give notice of that fact to the Secretary of State. We must revisit the issue of what a person who ceases to trade is required to do with his or her records. We are talking about an onerous fine. In fact, the hon. Member for Buckingham would like a much larger penalty for failure to comply. As yet, we have no guidance on a company or registered person who ceases to carry on business passing on his or her records for proper scrutiny at a later stage when the police may want to make inquiries.

Keith Hill: It is pretty obvious that there is disagreement between Opposition parties on the matter. The official Opposition suggest that the period should be reduced to 14 days, whereas the Liberal Democrats suggest an increase to 42 days. Surely that shows the reasonableness of the Government's position: 28 days is an extremely reasonable compromise.
 Amendment No. 12 would introduce a period of 42 days—

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: Let me first set the scene.
 Amendment No. 12 would introduce a period of 42 days for notification of changes or that a business has ceased trading as a registration plate supplier. The Government contend that a period of 28 days is adequate for that purpose.

John Bercow: There are two simple points. First, if the Minister were familiar with and a student of—[Interruption.] I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to my intervention, because it is deeply germane. If he were familiar with and a student of the works of Karl Popper or even, alternatively, the works of the distinguished logical positivist, Professor A. J. Ayer, he would know that he is guilty of bogus logic. It is absurd for the Minister to say that, because two alternative positions are suggested by other people, his position, which he lobs into the equation as a third, equidistant between the other two, is a reasonable compromise.
 Secondly, does he not accept that it is a trifle cheeky, not to say disingenuous, for him to claim that his position is a compromise between the other two suggestions, when the proposal was inserted into the Bill before he knew which amendments would be tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and by me? His claim of reasonableness and compromise is utterly bogus, and I know that he will now have the good grace to withdraw it. 
Mr. Hill rose—

David Chidgey: Surely the Minister understands that the amendments have been tabled to give him the opportunity to explain to the Committee why the Government have chosen their figure and not simply plucked it out of the air, as seemed to be the case from previous debates. It is extremely disingenuous and, if I may say, a little impolite to assume that the Committee is doing other than trying to help the Government.

Keith Hill: Good heavens! I seem to have stirred up a hornets' nest. I am grateful for the hon. Member for Buckingham's demonstration of positive logic. The Government anticipated the extreme positions that would be adopted by the opposition parties: the Official Opposition's right-wing libertarianism and the Liberal Democrats' usual attempts to outflank on the left. Our position is not an ex post facto compromise, but one well thought out in advance of the debate.
 Amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 10, which would remove the offence of failure to notify cessation of business as a registration plate supplier. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, in his usual reasonable fashion, we have already had that debate. However, he again raised the matter of records. In our earlier exchanges, I said that one proposal was for the retention of records for two years. However, that raises the interesting question how and where the records would be retained, which I hope to be able to answer in due course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will return to the issue at a later stage. 
 Amendment No. 28 would reduce the period for notifying alterations to the register from 28 days to 14, and amendment No. 29 would reduce the period for notifying cessation of business as a registration plate supplier from 28 days to 14. Both amendments would create difficulties, especially for larger businesses that must keep track of a greater number of retail outlets. There is no need to create such a difficulty; the clause affords a reasonable period that strikes a balance between the need to keep the register up to date and the need to reduce the burden on business. Large businesses must gather information from many outlets, which takes time; 28 days is a reasonable period, and consistently used in the Bill. It would be wrong to introduce different time scales for interlinked circumstances.

John Bercow: I am not entirely persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we have had a good canter round the course. As a caveat, I say that we may wish to return to the matter later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 14, line 16, leave out `3' and insert `5'.

Bowen Wells: With this we may take amendment No. 31, in clause 27, page 14, line 34, leave out `4' and insert `5'.

John Bercow: I cheekily dilated these points earlier and such was your tolerance, Mr. Wells, that you did not bring me to book for doing so. We had not quite reached amendments Nos. 30 and 31, but I inserted them into the thrust of my remarks on the time scale within which notifications to the register should be made of the cessation of business. Having indicated the seriousness with which my hon. Friends and I take these matters and the need for sufficient penalties, there is no reason to comment further. There is a case for tougher penalties and I rest that case.

Keith Hill: A fine at level 3 on the standard scale is £1,000. A fine at level 5 of £5,000 is too draconian for failing to notify changes. We are seeking the notification of details which might comprise only a small part of the information on the register. That is certainly not as serious as operating as an unregistered supplier. We therefore believe that the proposed scale is appropriate for such failures. It is also consistent with the vehicle and driver records proposal.
 Amendment No. 31— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put the Questions necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the business. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 Clauses 26 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.